Monday, April 14, 2008

The Problem With The Clinton Campaign

For a while now, I've been trying to figure out what it is about the Clinton campaign that has turned me off from the beginning. It has nothing to do with my support for Obama. I know that because I was turned off by her campaign well before I became emotionally invested in Obama's candidacy. And it doesn't stem from any lingering personal animosity toward the Clintons. Quite the contrary. My pre-campaign opinion of both the Clintons was very positive. I've always believed that both Hillary and Bill Clinton are highly intelligent, competent people whose hearts are generally in the right place and whose policy instincts are pretty good. And my pre-campaign instinct, if anything, was to jump to their defense when they came under attack. After all, I don't know of any two people in history who have had to endure more slander, character assassination, and unfair media coverage than the Clintons.

But this week I finally put my finger on what's been bothering me. The problem with the Clintons is that they've learned the wrong lessons from their years of abuse at the hands of the right wing smear machine. They've come to adopt the tactics of their enemies. What's been turning me off about Hillary's campaign is that it has been run exactly like a Republican general election campaign.

It's paint by the numbers. With every event, you know exactly how her campaign is going to respond. You know exactly how her opponent's words are going to be twisted and taken out of context. You know exactly what the surrogates are going to say and what the buzz words in the next campaign commercial will be. There's no mystery at all, no reservations or doubts. Just a ruthless utilitarian calculus that prioritizes victory over all else.

When Barack Obama's clumsy comments about small town America surfaced, all I had to do was close my eyes, and I could see what the next Clinton campaign ad would like like. And lo and behold, here it is, exactly how I imagined it:

It's exactly like a Republican attack ad. It's small-minded. It's dishonest. It's cynical. And the deeply ironic part is that nothing a candidate could do or say could possibly be more elitist and condescending than putting their name on this advertisement. This ad was clearly put together by cynical political operatives who think that voters are rubes.

When I see Clinton on television mouthing talking points that I know she doesn't really believe or I see her surrogates and operatives look into the camera and tell me with a straight face that that up is really down, I cringe. It's a Republican campaign being run in a Democratic primary. They've clearly decided that this is the only way politics can be played, and that's extraordinarily depressing.

I don't mean to suggest that Obama's campaign or the candidate himself are somehow above the political fray, or that they don't from time to time resort to some pretty furious spinning or some obviously disingenuous talking points. They do. But, for better or worse, the Obama campaign clearly doesn't follow the same playbook. Obama has, at crucial points in his campaign, decided to eschew easily digestible talking points and talk to voters like they're adults. He's refused to boil away the complexity of issues that are inherently complex. And perhaps most notably, when Obama reacts to the latest events or the latest twists and turns in the campaign, you genuinely don't know what he's going to say. His speeches, commercials, and talking point aren't predictable scripts spit out by the Polititron 3000 Computer.

At this point in the campaign, Hillary's individuality has been subsumed completely by the script. She simply says whatever the "right" answer is. You can hear it in her voice when she's voicing the latest attack on Obama's character. There's nothing there. She's just mouthing the talking points that the campaign's leaders have deemed necessary for the occasion (Obama is an elitist snob, I like hunting and beer, etc.). It's sad.

Regardless of what happens, I don't want that kind of soulless, lowest-common-denominator style of campaign to become the norm in the Democratic party. It's bad enough that one of the major parties consistently treats the American public like a bunch of ignorant children. I'd rather not have both parties stoop that kind of manipulative cynicism. Clinton needs to lose if for no other reason than to discourage this sort of campaigning.
Digg!

16 Comments:

Anonymous Casual Observer said...

I agree with most of this. With the Obama campaign, there is a candidate who has not been completely reduced to nothingness. Clinton, by contrast, may be a campaign director's ideal candidate, as she gives every appearance of being merely a vessel for "the message", delivered in a rather flat, lifeless way. Some have described her style as "cold", and I believe this is an attempt to capture this lack of identity associated with her campaign. But rather than "cold", I'd say it was devoid of temperature altogether.
Regardless, the over-packaging of democratic candidates has a long and unsuccessful history, and I'm glad Obama has rejected it in favor of being an actual human being.
As for his "elitism" and "aloofness", all I can do is shake my head when these are used to describe him, while at the same time the media ignores the administration currently in office. What is more "aloof" and "elite" than their torturing, law-ignoring, ultra-secretive behavior?

7:14 AM  
Blogger Michael said...

A.L.,

Hate to sound cynical, but isn't the U.S. full of rubes? Look who's made it to the WH... twice.

Not saying your points about Obama speaking to us as if we're, well, adults are untrue --- just that Hillary knows there are indeed plenty of rubes to prey upon. It's her only play... and she knows it. Problem is, she doesn't care that her actions leave a mess in her wake.

9:10 AM  
Blogger Brooks Hansen said...

A.L.,

all true, but the real mystery to me - or the question - has to do with her followers. It's one thing for a candidate to lose his/herself in the course of a campaign. The angels if her better nature are in a constant struggle, after all, with her bevy of advisors telling her at every turn what she should and should not say.

But what about her throng? Even up to, say, a month ago I could sympathize with them - their sense of disappointment, forsakenness, loss. When they got on the lefty blogs to trumpet her talking points - even the specious ones about Michigan and Florida - I could understand. Perhaps they really did believe she was better, more experienced, etc. etc.

But now? I don't see how anyone with eyes ears and a nose could possibly stomach her behavior, its so patently, so pathetically inauthentic. What are her true-bluers thinking? The ones who are "on the take" I get (even if I think they're fools, still believing there is any advantage to be gained by backing her). But what about all those - I'll just say it - women who had vested in her all their profoundest hopes and dreams. What dissonance must be playing in their heads as they watch a performance of such utter political shamelessness. Deep down they must be feeling same embarrassment that true conservatives have been struggling for seven or eight years now.

But must we lose another war for the privately disheartened to fess up?

Furthermore, and then I'll stop, but on this same point of Hillary's supporters (vs. Barack's), it strikes me that the Hillary-is-still-viable-candidate notion has derived a fair amount of juice from the idea, supported in polls, that her followers might not vote for Obama, whereas Obama's voters (being slightly more mature and clear-eyed) would vote for her over McCain.

Still true? Speaking for myself, I'd still never under any circumstance vote for McCain, but if Hillary keeps this crap up - and by crap, I mean the mind-boggling display of fatuous political expediency - I'm really not sure I could bring myself to hold my nose and vote for her. Policies notwithstanding, it really would feel too much like a vote for the same complete and utter bullshit. I suspect I wouldn't cast a vote for anyone, and I suspect I'm not alone.

10:40 AM  
Blogger Grog said...

Part of the reason the Republicans have won two in a row is that the Democrats tried to play by a higher standard. Like it or not, the Republican method works, and Hillary is using tactics that might seem undignified, but at least she'll be ready to fight fire with fire when it comes to the general election. If Obama tries to play nice against the Republicans, he'll get stomped. Sorry, but just like basketball, fouling has become part of the game.

4:43 PM  
Blogger thebigerns said...

Dude - the Clintons are Republicans.

They're Democrats in the same way Bush is a compassionate conservative.

6:04 PM  
Anonymous ResumeMan said...

"If Obama tries to play nice against the Republicans, he'll get stomped."

Since when has Obama played nice? Did you see his responses to the first rounds of bittergate? He was forceful, direct, and merciless. "Annie Oakley"? "Hillary in a duck blind"?

C'mon, that was some good stuff there. Obama is a very strong puncher when someone attacks. He's not gonna get rolled by the Republicans any more than he's getting rolled by Clinton.

But that doesn't mean that his Dem opponent has any business making the Republican attacks easier, or validating them. That's the problem with the way Hillary's been campaigning, not that she's being mean...

7:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brooks Hansen, you are not alone.

7:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Part of the reason the Republicans have won two in a row is that the Democrats tried to play by a higher standard. Like it or not, the Republican method works, and Hillary is using tactics that might seem undignified, but at least she'll be ready to fight fire with fire when it comes to the general election. If Obama tries to play nice against the Republicans, he'll get stomped. Sorry, but just like basketball, fouling has become part of the game."

I completely disagree with this. The reason that Dems lost the last two elections is that they let the Bush/Rove machine set the tone for the campaign. Rather than forcefully articulating ideas and coming back at Bush's inane attacks with intelligent rebuttals, they stuck to using the same type of carefully scripted, completely hollow, sound bites against the Republicans. Had Gore or Kerry opened up a bit on the trail and not sounded like such automatons, they would have wiped the floor with Bush, who has really never been very popular with anyone except a subset of the ultra-right. Hillary is Gore/Kerry v. 3.0.

9:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is one of the best posts I've read this campaign. It mirrors exactly how I feel about the Clintons, including the evolution in my feelings towards them that their Rovian style campaign has produced. I truly find their campaign to be sad not because of any damage it's doing to Dem. prospects in the Fall but because I hate that this will now be the Clintons' legacy.

I really liked them 6 months ago, it saddens me that I no longer do.

12:26 AM  
Blogger Sandy-LA 90034 said...

"They're Democrats in the same way Bush is a compassionate conservative."

Thank you for describing what I've been feeling for the past several months. Just as with the Bush Administration's successive outrages that left me feeling like I'd fallen down Alice's rabbit hole, I've had the same gut level reaction to Hillary's increasingly outrageous pronouncements. It's painful to observe Hillary using the Bush playbook time after time. I don't want to vote for another Bush or anyone who thinks his tactics are appropriate. I believe we're a better country than that.

12:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear AL,

I think she lost all believeability long ago, when she walked straight faced through the Lewinsky scandal -- she obviously hates her husband and just stayed with him to get her chance at the presidency. How could anything she says have a ring of truth after we all saw that happening?

6:54 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

"just like basketball, fouling has become part of the game". Yeah, but if that is all you have, you don't have game. And that is all she has.

And you don't need to "fight fire with fire". HRC's leads have diminished in every primary and much of it has to do with the way he handles the shit she throws.

10:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"just like basketball, fouling has become part of the game".

Yeah, but if that is all you have, you don't have game. And that is all she has.


It's also worth pointing out that the Knicks from the early '90s, who had a deliberate strategy of committing lots of hard fouls to slow the game down and keep their more talented opponents off balance, were never able to get past the Michael Jordan-led Bulls.

As for the OP, there have been many Hillary statements in this campaign that left me shaking my head, but the one that sticks out in my mind was the debate where, after Russert attempted to play Six Degrees of Louis Farrakhan with Obama, Hillary jumped in and started telling a story about her 2000 Senate campaign. I don't remember what she did to make me think this, but as she started speaking, I was under the impression she was going to be classy and come to his defense. Instead, she went for the attack, drawing an analogy that was both inaccurate (there's a difference between refusing the ballot line of a bigoted party and responding to a private citizen's unsolicited endorsement) and shameless (does she really expect to receive a Profiles in Courage award for refusing the support of an anti-Semitic group in a New York election?) Oh yeah, it was also politically dumb, since it allowed Obama to rebound from his somewhat meandering original answer with his witty "reject and denounce" line.

Obviously, the issue in and of itself wasn't particularly significant, but for me it provided the epiphany that A.L. appears to have just had. It wasn't so much the fact that she attacked him as it was the realization that I was naive to have ever expected her to do anything else. There is, and has never been, any coherence to Clinton's attacks on Obama beyond what she viewed as tactical effectiveness, and critics who assume there's always some grand strategic rationale behind the controversial statements of her or her surrogates are giving the campaign far too much credit. There is no strategy; it's all reactive. That's how she could support taking away MI/FL delegates before Iowa and New Hampshire right up until the moment when it became more politically advantageous to oppose that move, or belittle the importance of states she didn't win, or make a big deal out of his "plagiarism".

Think of it this way: If Obama had gone into a small town and made statements deemed critical of big-cities, does anyone doubt the Clinton campaign would now be working itself into a righteous lather defending the honor of New York and San Francisco?

2:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have a very different take on all of this. Early on I was reluctant to consider Hillary as a potential candidate. My ambivalence had little to do with Hillary personally but rather with an unwillingness to see a continuation of the "dynasty" politics that seems to have developed lately in this country (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton) and the fact that the right, which is a high-powered attack machine toward anyone on the left, has been particularly vicious toward the Clintons, helping to decrease the possibility of an effective administration.

Listening to Hillary in early campaign appearances and debates, however, I was favorably impressed. I still had the same reservations, but I found that the things I had liked about Hillary during her years in the White House were still there. Although I did not agree with everything she had to say, I substantially agreed with her policy points, and I found her to be well-informed, thoughtful, charming, and humorous. This, however, was not how she was being portrayed in the media--the left, progressive media, that is. It was as if the on-line world had suddenly morphed into the MSM of the Clinton White House years. Attack, attack, attack. Never say anything good about Hillary (or Bill). Misrepresent what she said or did both currently and in the past and don't bother to make a correction even when someone points out a factual inaccuracy; in fact, dismiss the correction as irrelevant. Harp on every wrong statement, vote, or action she has ever made, and totally, but totally, ignore anything good or worthwhile. I saw it over and over again, and I was astounded. Are there things to criticize Hillary on? Of course there are, but the attacks were relentless, frequently personal (thick ankles?), and also frequently wrong.

Meanwhile Obama began to emerge as the teflon candidate of the early 21st century. Claims that none of the money raised for his campaign has any ties to corporate, big money interests have been demonstrated to be wrong and yet the issue has been almost totally ignored on-line and in the MSM. When Michelle Obama responded to a question about whether or not she would work to elect Hillary if her husband did not get the nomination, she responded with not just a demurral based on her own busy life but with a diss of Hillary. Granted, she is not the candidate, but rather his wife, but, still, anytime anyone else, including Bill Clinton, has said something questionable on Hillary's behalf, that person--and, by extension, Hillary--has been raked over the coals for it. No such thing happened with Obama, and most people don't even remember that it happened. Hillary is accused of being a DINO but Obama, whose voting record is almost identical and who has raised money from the same industries as Hillary, is the quintessential Democrat according to the on-line world.

Then there's the question of who would support whom if the "wrong" candidate got the nomination. I frequently hear the accusation that Hillary supporters would not vote for Obama while Obama supporters would vote for Hillary. Well, on-line I've read just as many, if not more (depending on the site), Obama supporters proclaiming that they would never, ever vote for Hillary as I have the reverse. But I see far fewer accusations being flung about how awful the Obama supporters are for saying that. And, Hillary herself has said that that must not happen, that the important thing is to beat the Republican candidate, and that her supporters need to support whoever gets the nomination. Of course, in keeping with the general way Clinton is portrayed these days, that statement is never even acknowledged; meanwhile, as we can see in some comments here, she is instead accused of trying to destroy the Democratic party for her own benefit.

Personally I think both Obama and Clinton have their good and bad points (as do all candidates), but they are also both miles better than John McCain. I will support whichever of them gets the nomination. I am, nevertheless, profoundly disappointed in what has happened during this primary campaign, but, unlike so many others, I blame the ugliness just as much on Obama and his supporters as on Clinton and hers.

9:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The MSM frames the debate and everyone is willing to stay inside the box discussing it. It's not about the issues. It's petty politics as usual. Aided by the MSM, for the pockets of the MSM, to the detriment of most.

Where's health coverage for 40 million citizens? Canada spends 1/2 what the US does per capita, covers everyone and on average they live 2 years longer. Meanwhile here is what the public hears.

Gore's "lying"
Dean's "scream"
Kerry's "swiftboating"
Obama's "patriotism"
Hillary's "sniperfire"

See a pattern? There is no hope. There is only the MSM and their message of the day.

8:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The fourth wow power leveling latest game in wow power leveling Warcraft series is ‘wow power leveling’. Also known as wow power leveling, it represents a wow power leveling multiplayer online wow power leveling game, the best of wow power leveling kind. Initially, it was wow gold it be released in 2001, but wow powerleveling was delayed wow powerleveling 2004, thus wow powerleveling the 10 years ofwow powerleveling franchise of thiswow gold series. The world of warcraft power leveling was not world of warcraft power levelingfulfilling, because wow power levelproblems with wow power level server’s stability power leveling wow performance occurred, but power leveling wow game still power leveling wow a financial success powerleveling wow the most powerleveling wow game of its kind. The number cheap wow power leveling users that play Maple Story mesos, exceeds 8.5 MapleStory mesos, worldwide.As a form ms mesos,recognition for mesos,outstanding popularity, the game SilkRoad Gold, received aSRO Gold, of awards. Now the question eq2 plat, why is eq2 gold, game eq2 Platinum, popular? For anyoneEverQuest 2 Platinum, played the previous EverQuest 2 gold, and EverQuest 2 plat, already initiated lotro gold, the mysterious world lotr gold, the breathtaking Lord of the Rings online Gold, this Rolex Replica nothing but an Replica Rolex adventure that continues the story of ‘Warcraft III: Frozen Throne’, four years after conclusion, in the world of Azeroth. The game is online role-playing, the previous versions being online and offline strategy games. The major thrills and unique features are present as in every Blizzard game.

7:22 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home